Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 12 May 1994
Page: 701

Senator COLSTON —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notices that, at the giving of notice on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion no.2, standing in my name for two sitting days after today. I seek leave to make a short statement.

  Leave granted.

Senator COLSTON —On 14 March, I reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with this instrument, which related to failure to effect legislative intent. The minister has now provided the committee with information which meets our concerns. The committee is grateful for this cooperation. As usual, I seek leave to incorporate the committee's correspondence in Hansard.

  Leave granted.

  The correspondence read as follows

24 February 1994

The Hon Simon Crean, MP

Minister for Employment, Education and Training

Parliament House


Dear Minister

I refer to Determination No. TAFE 45/93 under ss.12, 13 and 14 of the States Grants (TAFE Assistance) Act 1989, considered by the Committee at its meeting of 24 February 1994.

The Explanatory Statement advised that, among other things, the Determination revoked the earlier Determination No. TAFE 23/93. Paragraph (a) of the present Determination, however, does not mention the earlier Determination and, therefore, does not appear to effect its apparent legislative intent.

The Committee would appreciate your advice.

Yours sincerely

Mal Colston


3 May 1994

Senator Mal Colston


Senate Standing Committee

Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House


Dear Mal

Thank you for your letter of 24 February 1994 to Mr Crean in which you requested information relating to Determination No. TAFE 45/93 made under the provisions of the States Grants (TAFE Assistance) Act 1989. Given the responsibilities of my portfolio Mr Crean has referred this matter to me.

As you pointed out in your letter the purpose of the Determination was to revoke a previous Determination No. TAFE 23/93 but because of a processing error the "23/93" did not print.

Advice was sought from Attorney-General's Department as to whether the revocation of Determination No. TAFE 23/93 was effective. They advised that "when reading 45/93 as a whole, 45/93 has effectively revoked 23/93. A comparison of 45/93 with 23/93 also supports this view".

They went on to say, "there were a number of determinations in existence under subsections 12(1), 13(1) and 14(1) of the Act at the time 45/93 was made. However, only 45/93 and 23/93 deal with proposals for expenditure on general equipment. Both determinations deal with expenditure in the same States. In some cases, the amount authorised for the expenditure of a State is the same in 45/93 and 23/93. In the other cases, the amount authorised for a State in 45/93 is higher than the amount authorised for the State in 23/93. 45/93 was made after 23/93. It appears that the purpose of 45/93 was to raise some of the amounts authorised for certain States. It is clear from these facts that 45/93 was intended to revoke 23/93. This reading of 45/93 is confirmed by the Explanatory Statement, which states that 45/93 revokes 23/93. Paragraph 15AB(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 permits the reference to extrinsic material, such as an Explanatory Statement, to resolve the meaning of a determination which is otherwise obscure".

I trust that this answers your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Ross Free